Jagose Week 1 - CMoney

          Reading Jagose has been quite the introduction to queer theory, and although it seems so deep and advanced at times to me, I have a feeling I'm only really scraping the surface of what queer theory really is, or can be. From the introduction, it seems queer is a term not yet fully defined, and may I don't think it wants to be. In establishing for myself and the purposes of this course, I gather from the first half of this text that queer is not homosexual, but rather realm in which the "other" can exist, "other" being those not formally relating themselves to the heteronormative or homonormative modes of thinking, living, or existing.

          The first page of this book took me for a loop with the quote from Halperin, "the more it verges on becoming a normative academic discipline, the less queer "queer theory" can plausibly claim to be." How can we possibly learn about something, if learning about it will cause it to no longer be true to itself? I understand that queer is the direct opposite of anything normative, but if it is not allowed to be standardized in the university, and allowed to be discovered by rising scholars, we will never have out next generation educated activists. I understand how taking queer from itself, and placing it in a textbook or classroom in a conservative manner could limit it, but ultimately I feel that is how it is going to reach the necessary audience. 

          Again of page 4, we have this notion that, if used in academics, certain terms will lose their strength. The editors of The Lesbian and Gay Reader felt the casual usage of such words would might be too conservative. I feel it is necessary to apply such words as lesbian, gay, and queer in academics in order for people to be in a setting, such as we are, to learn the realities of these terms. I've always found it particularly difficult to hold much weight in words, because the English language is truly ever changing, hence the rise, fall, and rise again of the term, queer. 

          Chapter two sums up the limits of identity in the ideals of two positions, essentialist and constructionist. The essentialist sees identity as natural and fixed, and that a person's sexual orientation is innate. The constructionist, on the other hand, sees identity as fluid, fluctuating with the environment a person may find themselves in at any point in their life. Personally, I would side more with the constructionist view point, because although we are born with certain traits and genes, we never know what is coming in life next and to I think everyone eventually learns to go with the flow. My grandmother told me never to say I never wanted to do anything, because it would probably come right back to bite me later, We can never predict our lives 5 or 10 years down the road, and we are creatures of adaptation. 

          One thing that has always dumbfounded me about the human sexual identity is why in the world anyone needs to know what my preference is or might be tomorrow. Page 38 quotes a newsletter stressing the gay liberation's need for coming out, if not only for yourself, for others that need to understand. Sexual relations is, or should be, quite the private matter and no one should be pressured to reveal such a private part of their identity to the benefit to someone else. I understand the gay liberation was making a great effort in attempting to make gay okay in the eyes of the judgmental society, but unfortunately another's happiness is not a sign of safety to the blind of morals. 

          There is so much more to a person's persona than their sexuality, and the emphasis society places on it is simply absurd. All people should feel free to love whomever makes them happy, and it's no one else's business.